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.
Tags Bose-Einstein condensates , cold fusion , Coulomb barrier , Eugene Podkletnov , Frank Znidarsic , planck's constant , quantum mechanics , quantum theory , Quantum Transition

Reply
Old 7th January 2011, 10:54 AM   #201
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by JCM View Post
What do you want to back up Dr Li? You now doubt Dr. Li. Im using the phyorg link your chapel for planck's sake
So far you have made claim after claim, but you can't cite research, maybe your internet is broken?
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David 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 7th January 2011, 11:35 AM   #202
Evilgiraffe
Scatterer of X-rays
 
Evilgiraffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oxfordshire
Posts: 760
Originally Posted by JCM View Post
well this is why not the complicated stuff you claim "makes sense"
Can someone parse this for me? The grammar appears to be broken.

Originally Posted by JCM View Post
Would you have me believe if everyone wasn't looking at the moon it would collapse into a wavefunction?
Do you really believe that a conscious observer is necessary for quantum interactions? Really?

Originally Posted by JCM View Post
and can you at least admit you were wrong about the radius of a proton at least the FULL radius
Ummmm, , because I wasn't. If you disagree go and reread the explanations given by Mattus and Ben, and this time try to actually understand them.
Evilgiraffe 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 8th January 2011, 04:47 PM   #203
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
Originally Posted by JCM View Post
If the priests mention it in the chapel then you must seriously look at it. The dogma is mind boggling think for yourselves only now that phyorg says well maybe there is something to this do you take a look. what about all the time before your priests said this might be possible
But thanks for the link for those that do need clergy it give some credence to the idea of it being at least possible, the first of many hurdles
Ah, there it is... the ultimate thread-killing argument. Well, I guess this one's finished
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness
MattusMaximus 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 20th January 2011, 08:34 AM   #204
fznidarsic
New Blood
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 6
my latest papers

Thanks for taking an interest in my work. Lane has offered some comments that took this work to a new level. My latest papers are below.

wbabin.net/science/znidarsic3.pdf

wbabin.net/science/znidarsic2.pdf

wbabin.net/science/znidarsic.pdf

I'll be speaking here with a peer reviewed paper in the spring. Come and see me.

ias-spes.org/SPESIF2011/AGENDA/2011_Agenda.pdf

Frank Znidarsic
fznidarsic 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 20th January 2011, 09:06 AM   #205
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,888
Will you be demonstrating cold fusion and anti-gravity?
__________________
"The presidentís voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesnít exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba 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 20th January 2011, 12:40 PM   #206
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by fznidarsic View Post
Thanks for taking an interest in my work. Lane has offered some comments that took this work to a new level. My latest papers are below.

wbabin.net/science/znidarsic3.pdf

wbabin.net/science/znidarsic2.pdf

wbabin.net/science/znidarsic.pdf

I'll be speaking here with a peer reviewed paper in the spring. Come and see me.

ias-spes.org/SPESIF2011/AGENDA/2011_Agenda.pdf

Frank Znidarsic
http://wbabin.net/science/znidarsic3.pdf

http://wbabin.net/science/znidarsic2.pdf

http://wbabin.net/science/znidarsic.pdf
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar

Last edited by Dancing David; 20th January 2011 at 12:41 PM.
Dancing David 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 24th January 2011, 07:23 AM   #207
fznidarsic
New Blood
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 6
Yes they are. You arguments that I have not been in peer reviewed articles are not valid.

osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=787504

and

ias-spes.org/SPESIF2011/AGENDA/2011_Agenda.pdf

I be published by the AIP and speaking on Weds. Look who speaks after me.

Frank Znidarsic
fznidarsic 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 24th January 2011, 07:36 AM   #208
Cuddles
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,560
Originally Posted by fznidarsic View Post
Yes they are. You arguments that I have not been in peer reviewed articles are not valid.

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/...osti_id=787504

http://www.ias-spes.org/SPESIF2011/A...011_Agenda.pdf
Neither of these links are to peer reviewed articles, they are both simply conference proceedings. Do you not understand what peer review actually is?
Cuddles 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 24th January 2011, 09:53 PM   #209
JCM
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 651
Is that the real Frank? If so, hello
Originally Posted by Cuddles View Post
Neither of these links are to peer reviewed articles, they are both simply conference proceedings. Do you not understand what peer review actually is?
You are correct. The lack of peer review is unnerving and the questions posed by others are legitimate. If that is the real Frank I would hope he could answer the questions asked I obviously can't
__________________
" You are uneasy; you never sailed with me before, I see. " Andrew Jackson
JCM 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 26th January 2011, 12:55 AM   #210
khan2012
New Blood
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 21
Hello JCM, that is definitely an interesting theory.

If cold fusion and antigravity become a commonplace reality, then hopefully I can get a hoverboard by Christmas of 2015
khan2012 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 26th January 2011, 01:50 AM   #211
khan2012
New Blood
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 21
Can a localized gravitational field strength can be increased via impedance matching?

If they ever manage to invent room temperature superconductors and they become commonplace, I predict many amateur inventors will develop flying anti-gravity cars very soon after.

Last edited by khan2012; 26th January 2011 at 02:02 AM. Reason: spellcheck
khan2012 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 27th January 2011, 07:26 AM   #212
to.by
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 106
A little belatedly. I quote:"Why don't electrons smash into the nucleus?" Ever heard of electron capture as a mode of radioactive decay?
to.by 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 27th January 2011, 11:42 PM   #213
khan2012
New Blood
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 21
Originally Posted by JCM View Post
Actually it does and it 1.36fm. The edge is the the edge of interactions so yes sorry it does play a role. Just as the earths atmosphere plays a role you can say the radius of the earth is the crust but that is not the whole picture buddy
You're just fishing for an excuse to dismiss the math in this theory.

Proton radius is still a mystery according to the "Ask a Scientist" physics archive:

Quote:

The radius of a proton depends on how you mean radius. It turns out that a
proton is not actually a ball. Latest experiments show that a proton is
made of three smaller particles called quarks. Quarks have a size too small
to measure. They may have no size at all. These three quarks spin around
each other very quickly. In reality, a proton does not have a radius. As
for radius of orbits, that involves an area of quantum mechanics that is
still being explored. We do not yet know enough about the force between
quarks to determine a value for orbit sizes within a proton, or a neutron.

khan2012 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 28th January 2011, 06:03 AM   #214
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by khan2012 View Post
Proton radius is still a mystery according to the "Ask a Scientist" physics archive:
Wow, lets see anything that says ORBIT about quarks is like totaly out of date or data , maybe you should try some reading before you try to talk about this, there are plenty of great lay books about the partcile physics.

Quarks do NOT orbit. Period. Full Stop.

You might want to start with this one:
http://www.amazon.com/Inward-Bound-M.../dp/0198519974

and this:
http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/27905

and this
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...cles/qbag.html

Although

this is an interesting read
http://www.amazon.com/Strange-Beauty.../dp/0679756884

and I prefer this one:


http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Genera.../dp/0691012067
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar

Last edited by Dancing David; 28th January 2011 at 06:13 AM.
Dancing David 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 28th January 2011, 02:16 PM   #215
JCM
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 651
Thank you for the links. Slowly but surely my idea that this theory is sound is falling apart. I hope Frank can put it back together or come forth with the admission it's BS. It's just so intricate I can't dismiss it outright though intricacy is never an indication of validity as some insanely complex CTs show...

Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
Wow, lets see anything that says ORBIT about quarks is like totaly out of date or data , maybe you should try some reading before you try to talk about this, there are plenty of great lay books about the partcile physics.

Quarks do NOT orbit. Period. Full Stop.

You might want to start with this one:
http://www.amazon.com/Inward-Bound-M.../dp/0198519974

and this:
http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/27905

and this
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...cles/qbag.html

Although

this is an interesting read
http://www.amazon.com/Strange-Beauty.../dp/0679756884

and I prefer this one:


http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Genera.../dp/0691012067
__________________
" You are uneasy; you never sailed with me before, I see. " Andrew Jackson
JCM 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 28th January 2011, 02:36 PM   #216
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by JCM View Post
It's just so intricate I can't dismiss it outright though intricacy is never an indication of validity as some insanely complex CTs show...
Why does "intricacy" have anything to do with your dismissing the theory?

If it's because you feel like you're not enough of an expert to understand whether the theory is right or wrong---well, be aware that actual experts do not hesitant to dismiss it.

If it has something to do with a vague idea that "FZ wouldn't have put gotten into so much detail unless there was something there"---well, your comparison to CTs is appropriate, and likewise lots of crackpot theories are very, very detailed.
ben m 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 29th January 2011, 02:40 AM   #217
khan2012
New Blood
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 21
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post


Quarks do NOT orbit. Period. Full Stop.
Thanks for the helpful links

I am still studying the various Znidarsic writings on the web.

According to the Wolfram Alpha site, 1.321 fm is the Compton wavelength of the proton.

Nassim Haramen, ex-area51 employee Bob Lazar, the Alien Scientist from YouTube, and Frank Znidarsic, among others, are all claiming that the strong/color force of quarks and protons is actually a type of gravity force.

More research is required
khan2012 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 29th January 2011, 06:36 AM   #218
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Except the stong force is exactly the opposite in nature of gravity?

Get out of the box and read some physics, not on Youtube.

In the strong force the 'pull' between the particles gets stronger the farther apart that they are. What happens with gravity? Hmmm?

Now a GUT would unify all four forces, duh. That would not mean that the strong force is gravity.

and the fact that you made a at the links is strange.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David 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 29th January 2011, 06:39 AM   #219
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Bob Lazar, seriously?

That is stupendous, Khan2012 I am about to stop talking with you.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David 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 29th January 2011, 10:43 AM   #220
JCM
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 651
Originally Posted by fznidarsic View Post
ias-spes.org/SPESIF2011/AGENDA/2011_Agenda.pdf
Look who speaks after me.
Dave Goodwin
Physical Scientist
U.S. Department of Energy
From here
Quote:
Physical Scientist presently working for the following 3 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Offices: Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)/Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR), Fusion Sciences, and Security.

Since 1986, also worked for the following 4 DOE Offices: High Energy Physics, Nuclear Physics, Scientific Computing, and Defense Programs. From 1976 to 1986, worked for the U.S. Navy. From 1972 to 1976, worked on 3 commercial nuclear power plants. From 1968 to 1971, was on staff at the Ohio State University (OSU).

Degrees from OSU in physics and engineering.
Fusion Sciences, and Security...


Originally Posted by khan2012 View Post
Proton radius is still a mystery according to the "Ask a Scientist" physics archive
If the physicists here agree with this, then can it still be categorically stated the proton radius isn't 1.321fm?

Originally Posted by khan2012 View Post
According to the Wolfram Alpha site, 1.321 fm is the Compton wavelength of the proton.
I wonder if we can get physicists on the forum to debate this with those that put that on the Wolfram Alpha site. It seems no one here will agree that this is true

Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
Bob Lazar, seriously?
I know right. Lazar's story has more holes than swiss. I have yet to see that local Los Alamos Labs circular/newspaper that supposed had his name in it But he has to be telling the truth because he knew where the bathrooms were...

Originally Posted by ben m View Post
If it has something to do with a vague idea that "FZ wouldn't have put gotten into so much detail unless there was something there"---well, your comparison to CTs is appropriate, and likewise lots of crackpot theories are very, very detailed.
Yes that was the parallel I was drawing. I believe when you said "actual experts do not hesitant to dismiss it" you mean "are not hesitant to dismiss it", that is I hope, unless you are saying some experts do not dismiss it then I would like to hear from these experts.

Maybe Dave Goodwin who is speaking after Frank will be hesitant to dismiss it. Interesting he is Fusion Security personnel at DOE...
__________________
" You are uneasy; you never sailed with me before, I see. " Andrew Jackson
JCM 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 29th January 2011, 12:04 PM   #221
khan2012
New Blood
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 21
I agree that it is hard to take Bob Lazar seriously. Bob Lazar's story has been thoroughly debunked by ...Stanton Friedman.

If Stanton Friedman is a credible person then his UFO investigations probably have merit. So there is alien technology hidden away ...somewhere, out there.

I can't post links until I have more than 15 posts, thus the mr.green smiley from the other post
khan2012 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 29th January 2011, 12:56 PM   #222
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
post them like this: www_google_com, then we can repair them.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David 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 31st January 2011, 09:12 PM   #223
Chronopolitan
Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 48
Just my 2 cents.

First, I want to tell a story.

Back in Antiquity, after the foundation of Alexandria and the famous Library of Alexandria, there was a flourishing new thing: SCIENCE.
Not long ago, Antiquity was disregarded because of an alleged lack of "method". This has recently been proven wrong by physicist and science historian Lucio Russo. (I recommend his book, acclaimed by "Nature" and others, "The Forgotten Revolution")

Since the decoding of the Antikythera Device
(see reconstructions on NewScientists youtube-channel)
there was no doubt about high scientific standards in Antiquity.
As you might know, Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the Earth correctly and with the right experimental method.
It is now clear that the Ptolemaeic Alexandria and other Hellenistic states were leading the way.
Lucretius, the Roman philosopher, sums up the knowledge of Ancient Greece in his science poetry "De Rerum Natura".
In this book, he states some kind of Law of Energy conservation, something like the Planck lenght/time, he described how things must fall at equal acceleration in the vacuum.

Now that is something, huh? He even explains how life evolved through natural selection of animals not adapted for their environment.

WTF!!! That was in the 1st century BC - and it was some kind of compendium, not even a scientific paper!
The scientific papers we have (like the "Palimpsest" of Archimedes, in which he invented calculus) use scientific methods of today.
The problem was: too few people understood science, and the Romans just needed the high-tech, they didn't care for basic research.

We know today, that ancient scientist already HAD a relativistic view.
They KNEW that Heliocentrism describes what really is, but invented epicyles to match the *phenomena*, that is: what is perceivable through observation!
Ptolemy the Astronomer forgot what was already known - thanks to that we went back to Geocentrism...

Now what has that to do with the topic, you might ask.

Well, I read through the whole discussion and could not but palmface all the time. Not about what was actually the topic, but about the behavior of some people here.

MattusMaximus, you are truly the champion of willing misunderstanding here.
As a scientist, you should know that it is still possible, if not likely, that the next "GUT" comes from an outsider.
If Faraday had posted on this forum, he would have been ridiculed. Shame on all of you.

In no way do I want to defend any of the papers that are in question. It's the principles of science that matter.
There are people, who WANT to misunderstand, who refuse to think a whole knew model.
Now think about the Greeks. They had TWO models. Heliocentrism is the most SIMPLE model to EXPLAIN the movement of the planets.
Geocentrism with epicycles is EASIER to calculate, if you want to predict phenomena.

Now think about Frank Znidarsic again. He may be an eletrical engineer and self tought physicist. He sees things like an engineer:
Harmonic motion of an electron can be modeled as a spring.
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG IN DOING THAT.
The math comes out right.

Now, what do we have in Quantum Mechanics? There's a probability map, which rerived out of empirical data.
Plancks constant ist empirical data. So are most measurements of particle masses and so forth.
It is therefore absolutely legitimate to introduce a speed (Vt/ct) that actually represents something REAL and discard Plancks constant. It might seem circular at first, but it is possible to connect all relevant equations and predict things that CANNOT BE PREDICTED USING PLANCKS CONSTANT ALONE or NOT AT ALL.
If Frank can predict radii of atoms or orbitals, you have to look at what the math *means*. You have to imagine a new model.
If you read Lucretius, you will find something like vacuum energy, if you follow HIS terminology. It is the concept that suggests it *means* "our" vacuum energy. And of course, Lucretius is a philosopher and won't deal with maths.

Besides: Logic dictates that if two models (let's say Quantum Mechanics and FZs transitional state theory) are based on the same data (as you implied by saying FZ's "vt" is derived from Planck's Constant) but produce experimental results contrary to either one of the theories, then the mathematically consistent model proves the acquired data wrong.
FZ produces the exact spacing of two nuclei.

The radius of the proton is not known exactly. If FZ produces a value that does not match, what does a real scientist do?

He looks for something *in the theory that predicted the "wrong" value*.
Something that could be the CAUSE why the empirically obtained data does not match. For instance, if the measurement method directly affects the radius of the proton. Or if the measurement tool can't measure it. Remember - only a sieve fine enough will give away the finest sand.

As for Cold Fusion, you might have heard about this one:

At least this time it seems actual scientists of the University of Bologna made reports on the device that allegedly produces 12 KW out of 400W input.
See article on physorg.

Please for the sake of truth, for which you all shall strive:

MattusMaximus, as a professor you should not look down upon laymen or students. Do not disregard those who QUESTION, for those who question are the natural selection of the evolution of science.
If they are wrong, tell them where they are wrong.
All YOU did was saying: "It does not accord to the Standard Model we have today, therefore it must be wrong."
You have to prove HIM wrong. His math is valid. You have to USE HIS equations to fill in the gaps of QM and find out what does not comply and WHY. Present your findings in an orderly scientific discussion. If you ridicule those people, they will never publish peer reviewed papers.

Lord Kelvin said around 1900: "There is nothing new in physics. All we have to do is measure correctly." Or words to that effect.
Boy, was he wrong.
Chronopolitan 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 31st January 2011, 10:20 PM   #224
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,888
Originally Posted by Chronopolitan View Post
First, I want to tell a story.

Back in Antiquity, after the foundation of Alexandria and the famous Library of Alexandria, there was a flourishing new thing: SCIENCE.
Not long ago, Antiquity was disregarded because of an alleged lack of "method". This has recently been proven wrong by physicist and science historian Lucio Russo. (I recommend his book, acclaimed by "Nature" and others, "The Forgotten Revolution")

Since the decoding of the Antikythera Device
(see reconstructions on NewScientists youtube-channel)
there was no doubt about high scientific standards in Antiquity.
As you might know, Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the Earth correctly and with the right experimental method.
It is now clear that the Ptolemaeic Alexandria and other Hellenistic states were leading the way.
Lucretius, the Roman philosopher, sums up the knowledge of Ancient Greece in his science poetry "De Rerum Natura".
In this book, he states some kind of Law of Energy conservation, something like the Planck lenght/time, he described how things must fall at equal acceleration in the vacuum.

Now that is something, huh? He even explains how life evolved through natural selection of animals not adapted for their environment.

WTF!!! That was in the 1st century BC - and it was some kind of compendium, not even a scientific paper!
The scientific papers we have (like the "Palimpsest" of Archimedes, in which he invented calculus) use scientific methods of today.
The problem was: too few people understood science, and the Romans just needed the high-tech, they didn't care for basic research.

We know today, that ancient scientist already HAD a relativistic view.
They KNEW that Heliocentrism describes what really is, but invented epicyles to match the *phenomena*, that is: what is perceivable through observation!
Ptolemy the Astronomer forgot what was already known - thanks to that we went back to Geocentrism...

Now what has that to do with the topic, you might ask.

Well, I read through the whole discussion and could not but palmface all the time. Not about what was actually the topic, but about the behavior of some people here.

MattusMaximus, you are truly the champion of willing misunderstanding here.
As a scientist, you should know that it is still possible, if not likely, that the next "GUT" comes from an outsider.
If Faraday had posted on this forum, he would have been ridiculed. Shame on all of you.

In no way do I want to defend any of the papers that are in question. It's the principles of science that matter.
There are people, who WANT to misunderstand, who refuse to think a whole knew model.
Now think about the Greeks. They had TWO models. Heliocentrism is the most SIMPLE model to EXPLAIN the movement of the planets.
Geocentrism with epicycles is EASIER to calculate, if you want to predict phenomena.

Now think about Frank Znidarsic again. He may be an eletrical engineer and self tought physicist. He sees things like an engineer:
Harmonic motion of an electron can be modeled as a spring.
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG IN DOING THAT.
The math comes out right.

Now, what do we have in Quantum Mechanics? There's a probability map, which rerived out of empirical data.
Plancks constant ist empirical data. So are most measurements of particle masses and so forth.
It is therefore absolutely legitimate to introduce a speed (Vt/ct) that actually represents something REAL and discard Plancks constant. It might seem circular at first, but it is possible to connect all relevant equations and predict things that CANNOT BE PREDICTED USING PLANCKS CONSTANT ALONE or NOT AT ALL.
If Frank can predict radii of atoms or orbitals, you have to look at what the math *means*. You have to imagine a new model.
If you read Lucretius, you will find something like vacuum energy, if you follow HIS terminology. It is the concept that suggests it *means* "our" vacuum energy. And of course, Lucretius is a philosopher and won't deal with maths.

Besides: Logic dictates that if two models (let's say Quantum Mechanics and FZs transitional state theory) are based on the same data (as you implied by saying FZ's "vt" is derived from Planck's Constant) but produce experimental results contrary to either one of the theories, then the mathematically consistent model proves the acquired data wrong.
FZ produces the exact spacing of two nuclei.

The radius of the proton is not known exactly. If FZ produces a value that does not match, what does a real scientist do?

He looks for something *in the theory that predicted the "wrong" value*.
Something that could be the CAUSE why the empirically obtained data does not match. For instance, if the measurement method directly affects the radius of the proton. Or if the measurement tool can't measure it. Remember - only a sieve fine enough will give away the finest sand.

As for Cold Fusion, you might have heard about this one:

At least this time it seems actual scientists of the University of Bologna made reports on the device that allegedly produces 12 KW out of 400W input.
See article on physorg.

Please for the sake of truth, for which you all shall strive:

MattusMaximus, as a professor you should not look down upon laymen or students. Do not disregard those who QUESTION, for those who question are the natural selection of the evolution of science.
If they are wrong, tell them where they are wrong.
All YOU did was saying: "It does not accord to the Standard Model we have today, therefore it must be wrong."
You have to prove HIM wrong. His math is valid. You have to USE HIS equations to fill in the gaps of QM and find out what does not comply and WHY. Present your findings in an orderly scientific discussion. If you ridicule those people, they will never publish peer reviewed papers.

Lord Kelvin said around 1900: "There is nothing new in physics. All we have to do is measure correctly." Or words to that effect.
Boy, was he wrong.
I'm disappointed by the lack of "THEY LAUGHED AT GALILEO" in this post.
__________________
"The presidentís voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesnít exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba 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 1st February 2011, 12:33 AM   #225
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by Chronopolitan View Post
Now think about Frank Znidarsic again. He may be an eletrical engineer and self tought physicist. He sees things like an engineer:
Harmonic motion of an electron can be modeled as a spring.
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG IN DOING THAT.
The math comes out right.
There is something wrong with that: it's not actually a model of the world we live in. It's just math gibberish.

Quote:
Besides: Logic dictates that if two models (let's say Quantum Mechanics and FZs transitional state theory) are based on the same data (as you implied by saying FZ's "vt" is derived from Planck's Constant) but produce experimental results contrary to either one of the theories, then the mathematically consistent model proves the acquired data wrong.
That sentence is unintelligible. Please rephrase. But it sounds a lot like you're trying to say "my model is unfalsifiable". Also: quantum mechanics is mathematically consistent, haven't you heard?

Quote:
FZ produces the exact spacing of two nuclei.
No it doesn't.

Quote:
The radius of the proton is not known exactly. If FZ produces a value that does not match, what does a real scientist do?

He looks for something *in the theory that predicted the "wrong" value*.
Something that could be the CAUSE why the empirically obtained data does not match. For instance, if the measurement method directly affects the radius of the proton. Or if the measurement tool can't measure it. Remember - only a sieve fine enough will give away the finest sand.
Hoo boy. FZ knows, one hopes, that there are measurements of (say) the deuterium charge radius via the Balmer spectral lines, and via the angular distribution of scattered electrons at 10-100 MeV. As a theorist, it's his job to calculate something measurable. If he has some theory saying that there's one radius A that's relevant to Balmer line measurements, and another radius B relevant to nothing at all, why the heck would you calculate B first?

(Here's a thought. Suppose you were a bad theorist, haphazardly throwing together numbers from a bad theory. You pop out B and call it the "radius". Later you learn that it's "wrong". So you pretend to have an excuse---to make it sound like science, you cite some detail of the experiments and claim that this detail makes all the difference between A and B. Although to be honest you have no idea whether A=B or what. This is called "failing at science".)

For example: If a particle theorist announces "My theory says that the Higgs mass is 140 GeV", they do NOT mean "... as measured by Plato himself using tachyonic unicorn scales". They mean " ... so it will produce a bump at 140 GeV in the data at the LHC". They also mean that "if you see a bump at 130 GeV, my theory must be wrong."


Quote:
You have to prove HIM wrong. His math is valid.
The speed of light is c = 3e8. The radius of an atom is r = 1 angstrom. Therefore we derive a fundamental time, r/c = 3 x 10^-19. This must be the lifetime of the electron. My math is valid in that I didn't make an arithmetic error. You have to prove me wrong, right?

An infinite number of different maths are "valid"---Newton's, Ptolemy's, Einstein's, etc.---in the sense of not having algebra errors. That doesn't mean that they correctly describe the Universe we live in. That is the difference between math and physics. The laws of physics have to have the correct math AND it has to correctly describe all experiments. (Not just the experiments that the theorist finds convenient.)

Last edited by ben m; 1st February 2011 at 12:35 AM.
ben m 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 1st February 2011, 04:37 AM   #226
Chronopolitan
Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 48
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
There is something wrong with that: it's not actually a model of the world we live in. It's just math gibberish.
Ok, so QM describes the world as we can see it, and predict probabilities. But it doesn't explain why. That is the criticism.

Quote:
That sentence is unintelligible. Please rephrase. But it sounds a lot like you're trying to say "my model is unfalsifiable". Also: quantum mechanics is mathematically consistent, haven't you heard?
I didn't say that. But some measurements are not certain. Just as an analogy: if you measure the space between two metal balls with a magnetic ruler, you won't end up with the right value.
Does measurement not affect the result in QM?



Quote:
No it doesn't.
Obviously it does, I watched the videos, and there it is.
Please specify and indicate which step is wrong.

Quote:
Hoo boy. FZ knows, one hopes, that there are measurements of (say) the deuterium charge radius via the Balmer spectral lines, and via the angular distribution of scattered electrons at 10-100 MeV. As a theorist, it's his job to calculate something measurable. If he has some theory saying that there's one radius A that's relevant to Balmer line measurements, and another radius B relevant to nothing at all, why the heck would you calculate B first?
If you measure the movement of planets, it perfectly fits the Geocentric model. You have to accept the Heliocentric model to recalculate the movements from the POV other than the earth.
Quote:
For example: If a particle theorist announces "My theory says that the Higgs mass is 140 GeV", they do NOT mean "... as measured by Plato himself using tachyonic unicorn scales". They mean " ... so it will produce a bump at 140 GeV in the data at the LHC". They also mean that "if you see a bump at 130 GeV, my theory must be wrong."
These are all virtual particles to calculate the forces etc.
They do not necessarily represent "reality".

Quote:
An infinite number of different maths are "valid"---Newton's, Ptolemy's, Einstein's, etc.---in the sense of not having algebra errors. That doesn't mean that they correctly describe the Universe we live in. That is the difference between math and physics. The laws of physics have to have the correct math AND it has to correctly describe all experiments. (Not just the experiments that the theorist finds convenient.)
After all, as JCM demanded, we have yet to see where exactly FZ's model is wrong. Of course FZ has to provide us with some more predictions.
Chronopolitan 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 1st February 2011, 04:38 AM   #227
Chronopolitan
Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 48
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
I'm disappointed by the lack of "THEY LAUGHED AT GALILEO" in this post.
Maybe you want to work on your quote/own text ratio. :-D
Chronopolitan 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 1st February 2011, 05:27 AM   #228
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by Chronopolitan View Post
First, I want to tell a story.

...

Boy, was he wrong.
Welcome!

When his model actually is consistent and explains something then you can do your superiority dance. At this time all you have added is spin and rhetoric.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David 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 1st February 2011, 05:32 AM   #229
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by Chronopolitan View Post
I didn't say that. But some measurements are not certain. Just as an analogy: if you measure the space between two metal balls with a magnetic ruler, you won't end up with the right value.
Does measurement not affect the result in QM?
No, measurement is limited by HUP, you are muddled.
Quote:

....

If you measure the movement of planets, it perfectly fits the Geocentric model. You have to accept the Heliocentric model to recalculate the movements from the POV other than the earth.
This statement I have seen before, it is also wrong. The Ptolomeic model gives a rough approximation. Kepler's orbits allow you to navigate through celestial time fixes.
Quote:


These are all virtual particles to calculate the forces etc.
They do not necessarily represent "reality".
This is gibberish and rhetorical spin.
Quote:



After all, as JCM demanded, we have yet to see where exactly FZ's model is wrong. Of course FZ has to provide us with some more predictions.
The all he has is a model , and nothing substantial.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David 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 1st February 2011, 08:01 AM   #230
Kuko 4000
Graduate Poster
 
Kuko 4000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,586
Welcome to the forums Chronopolitan, may your stay be pleasant and educating
__________________
Richard Dawkins: "We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."

Pixie of key: "HOW IS YOU NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT I AM GIVING LECTURES ON A PROBLEM."
Kuko 4000 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 1st February 2011, 12:00 PM   #231
Chronopolitan
Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 48
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
No, measurement is limited by HUP, you are muddled.
See? Without a Heisenberg Compensator(tm) You won't get the whole thing.
I'm curious about how FZ explains why measurement is limited by HUP. (oh wait, didn't he actually do that in one paper?)

Quote:
This statement I have seen before, it is also wrong. The Ptolomeic model gives a rough approximation. Kepler's orbits allow you to navigate through celestial time fixes.
I wasn't talking about the Ptolemeic model. I was talking about the geocentric model as a POV. Ptolemy even had the circumference of the earth wrong despite the fact that it has been measured correctly b Eratosthenes hundreds of years earlier.
If you look at the Antikythera Device, you will see that the constructor found mathematical ways to accurately translate the irregularities into the gearwork.

Quote:
This is gibberish and rhetorical spin.
Well, as I said: one should explain why so people can learn during a discussion.

Quote:
The all he has is a model , and nothing substantial.
Ok, so there IS a model. I really want to know what people knowing physics make of it.
So what I expect is that able people thoroughly read what FZ wrote (all of it) and dismantle it to find the errors.
Or - if the model is mathematically valid - use it to try to replicate results that have been calculated by accepted models or measurements.

I am still waiting to see that. I can't do it, I'm a Humanities guy, I only know arts.
Chronopolitan 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 1st February 2011, 12:10 PM   #232
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by Chronopolitan View Post
After all, as JCM demanded, we have yet to see where exactly FZ's model is wrong.
OK, I'll get started.

Originally Posted by http://www.scribd.com/doc/25456609/Frank-Znidarsic-Control-of-Natural-Forces-leading-to-Cold-Fusion-and-Anti-Gravity
Planckís constant describes the energy of an emitted photon. Vt describes the velocity of the emitting
structure. Two additional classical parameters are required in order to describe quantum phenomena in
terms of the emitting structure. They will be briefly presented. The radius rp is that of the maximum
extent of the proton. The strength of the electrical force equals the strength of the strong nuclear force at
this radius. The classical radius of the electron exists at 2rp. The coulombic force produced between two
electrical charges compressed to within 2rp equals 29.05 Newtons. The force produced by an amount of
energy equal to the rest mass of the electron confined to within 2rp is also 29.05 Newtons. This
confinement force Fmax was qualified in equation (1).
There is no radius where "the strength of the electrical force equals the strength of the strong nuclear force"; these forces act on totally different objects. It's like saying "this is the radius where the force of wind resistance is equal to the force of neutrinos". Uh, force on what? The strong force between two red quarks is different than the force between a red and an antired (but the EM force is the same.) The strong force between two up quarks is the same as between two down quarks (but the EM force is different). The strong force between two electrons is zero but the EM force is not. The strong force between two gluons is large but the EM force is zero. All of these "forces" are energy-dependent. There is no standard conversion between strong-charge and EM charge, so unless you have a specific pair of particles in mind the comparison is apples-to-oranges.

The "classical radius" statement is a tautology. The classical radius of the electron was defined to be a radius such that the EM potential energy is equal to the rest mass. It's like saying "The mass-energy in one kilogram is exactly the same as the energy in a carbon-12 atom, times Avogadro's Number, times 1000/12."
ben m 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 1st February 2011, 12:17 PM   #233
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by Chronopolitan View Post
Ok, so QM describes the world as we can see it, and predict probabilities. But it doesn't explain why. That is the criticism.
It can explains why to a far more precise degree than, say, the physics of a falling apple.

Quote:
If you measure the movement of planets, it perfectly fits the Geocentric model. You have to accept the Heliocentric model to recalculate the movements from the POV other than the earth.
That's because the laws of physics don't really care what reference frame you choose. It's not scientifically wrong to accept a heliocentric model. It's just not practical.

Quote:
These are all virtual particles to calculate the forces etc.
They do not necessarily represent "reality".
?? Real photons have been observed. Real gluons have been observed. Real W and Z bosons have been observed. Real Higgs bosons will probably be observed.
Tubbythin 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 1st February 2011, 01:32 PM   #234
Chronopolitan
Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 48
Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post
?? Real photons have been observed. Real gluons have been observed. Real W and Z bosons have been observed. Real Higgs bosons will probably be observed.
It more seems to me like predicting how the waves on a lake's surface will move not knowing exactly where the stone will fall. Something like that.
Chronopolitan 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 1st February 2011, 01:34 PM   #235
Chronopolitan
Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 48
Phonons

I have found something by Hagelstein (MIT) mentioning "phonons".

"Inclusion of phonon exchange in a nuclear matrix element" (2007)

You can find this on arXiv...
Chronopolitan 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 1st February 2011, 01:34 PM   #236
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by Chronopolitan View Post
It more seems to me like predicting how the waves on a lake's surface will move not knowing exactly where the stone will fall. Something like that.
Pardon?
Tubbythin 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 1st February 2011, 01:37 PM   #237
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by Chronopolitan View Post
It more seems to me like predicting how the waves on a lake's surface will move not knowing exactly where the stone will fall. Something like that.
So you don't understand the nature of reality, particles are waves all the time. They are waves all the time.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David 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 1st February 2011, 01:38 PM   #238
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by Chronopolitan View Post
I have found something by Hagelstein (MIT) mentioning "phonons".

"Inclusion of phonon exchange in a nuclear matrix element" (2007)

You can find this on arXiv...
Yeah, so? You tell us why it matters.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David 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 1st February 2011, 01:43 PM   #239
Chronopolitan
Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 48
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
Yeah, so? You tell us why it matters.
There has been a dispute about the use of the word "phonon", which I think FZ treats as a compression wave.
It has been denied that such a thing exists.
Chronopolitan 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 1st February 2011, 02:05 PM   #240
Chronopolitan
Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 48
I found another forum that discusses FZs work and other interesting stuff.
Those people are actually *reading* the stuff. And they try to use it.
Look at quantumtransition dot com.
This is something I want to see here too. People like most of you want to destroy everything that doesn't accord to the Mainstream. This has always been a bad idea.
But might not be the only phenomenon here, I would guess.
Even if Newtonian physics hit you right in the face as in the WTC7 case, you would probably find a way out and claim something - and here all what you had learned in QM magically disappears - completely improbable that even contradicts empirical data (no steel frame high-rise building has ever collapsed due to fire - there have been fires burning for 48h straight with much higher temperatures without reducing the whole building to a pile of rubble neatly arranged between adjacent buildings).

I hope I'm right so I can rant a little more ;-)
Chronopolitan 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 08:58 AM.
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.